- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri U. N. Sharma alongwith Sri S. B. Pandey learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri K. R. Sirohi alongwith Sri Amit Kumar learned Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THE petitioners were initially appointed in the year 1990 in the Class III category in the Judgeship of District Ballia and when their services were terminated on 6-1-1993 they approached this Court by way of this writ petition and the interim order was passed on 3-2-1993 which reads as below : "petitioners claim to have been appointed as Class-III employees in District Ballia in the year 1991-92. THEir services has been terminated by an order dated 6-1-1993 by the District Judge, Ballia. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed. THE Registrar of this Court has now issued an order dated 24-12-1992 according to which ad-hoc Class III employees of the subordinate Courts who are entitled to the benefit of the U. P. Regularisation of Ad- hoc Appointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 he regularised. In para 2 of the above letter, it has been further been provided that services of those employees of Class III, who were appointed prior to 21-5-1992 shall not be terminated and they may be allowed to continue subject to their appearing at and passing the competitive test held for the selection of Class III employees of the Subordinate Court. In view of the above order of the Registrar, the petitioners, who were appointed in 1991-92 are also entitled to continue subject to their appearing at and passing in the competitive test to be held for the selection of Class III employees. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the operation of the impugned order dated 6-1-1993 shall remain stayed. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and it granted one month time to file counter-affidavit. Petitioners will have thereafter two weeks time to file rejoinder-affidavit. List this writ petition before the appropriate Court in the 2nd week of April, 1993". Now counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and during the course of hearing on 4-2-2003 is necessarity was felt as to what rules in respect of the petitioners are to be adopted. A supplementary affidavit has been filed. Generally the documents are rendered in the registry unless it is accepted by the Court of its necessity when the Court intends to dispose of the case finally and other parties to the case are not objecting case. Since the supplementary affidavit is directly submitted to the Court and is being accepted and placed on the record and a advance copy has already been served to Sri K. R. Sirohi learned Counsel for the respondent/district Judge, Ballia. After perusal of this supplementary affidavit, it reveals that earlier U. P. Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointment (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 was applicable. Now learned Counsel for the petitioners has brought The Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001 passed on 20th December, 2001, which has been fairly accepted by Sri K. R. Sirohi learned Counsel for the District Judge, Ballia/respondent. According to this in the column of Rule 4 (1) or earlier Rule 1979 in para (2) to the Rules, 2001 it has been incorporated as given below : (2) In the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 in Rule 4 for existing sub-rule (1) set out in column 1 below, the sub-rule as set out in column 2 shall be substituted namely : Column-1 Existing sub-rule (1) Any person who - (i) was directly appointed on ad-hoc basis before January, 1, 1979 and is continuing in service, such on the date of commencement of these rules; (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment as the time of such ad-hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules of orders. Sub-rule as hereby substituted; Column 2 (1) Any person who - (i) was directly appointed on ad-hoc basis on or before June 30, 1998 and is continuing in service as such on the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Ad-hoc Appointments (On Posts Outside the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2001, (ii) possessed requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment as the time of such ad-hoc appointment; and (iii) has completed or, as the case may be, after he has completed three years service shall be considered for regular appointment in permanent or temporary vacancy, as may be available, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy in accordance with the relevant rules or orders". I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and I find that undisputedly the petitioners were appointed on ad-hoc service and at the time of appointment they were in possession of the required qualifications for appointment to the post of regular candidates in Class III category and they have been working since their initial appointment irrespective of the manner after getting protection of interim order dated 4-2-2003. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the continuing in service as a ad-hoc employee in Class III category by the interim order of this Court dated 4-2-2003 is not a usual continuance and this benefit is not to be extended. This submission in my respectful consideration is not correct as the actual services rendered in continuity as ad-hoc employee has to be considered for the purpose of regularisation under Rules, 2001. From this point of view all the petitioners are entitled to continue under Rules, 2001 against the substantive vacancies. Here vacancies in substantive capacity are available where the petitioners services are being rendered.
(3.) THEREFORE, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondent/district Judge, Ballia has to consider the cases of regularisation of the petitioners in accordance with law as well as in view of the provisions of Rules 2001 as indicated above expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order on behalf of the petitioners. In view of the above observations, writ petitions are disposed of. Petition disposed of. .;